4.6 Article

Antisense Morpholino Oligonucleotides Reduce Neurofilament Synthesis and Inhibit Axon Regeneration in Lamprey Reticulospinal Neurons

Journal

PLOS ONE
Volume 10, Issue 9, Pages -

Publisher

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0137670

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. National Institutes of Health [R01 NS14837, R01 NS38537]
  2. Shriners Research Foundation [SHC-85220]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The sea lamprey has been used as a model for the study of axonal regeneration after spinal cord injury. Previous studies have suggested that, unlike developing axons in mammal, the tips of regenerating axons in lamprey spinal cord are simple in shape, packed with neurofilaments (NFs), and contain very little F-actin. Thus it has been proposed that regeneration of axons in the central nervous system of mature vertebrates is not based on the canonical actin-dependent pulling mechanism of growth cones, but involves an internal protrusive force, perhaps generated by the transport or assembly of NFs in the distal axon. In order to assess this hypothesis, expression of NFs was manipulated by antisense morpholino oligonucleotides (MO). A standard, company-supplied MO was used as control. Axon retraction and regeneration were assessed at 2, 4 and 9 weeks after MOs were applied to a spinal cord transection (TX) site. Antisense MO inhibited NF180 expression compared to control MO. The effect of inhibiting NF expression on axon retraction and regeneration was studied by measuring the distance of axon tips from the TX site at 2 and 4 weeks post-TX, and counting the number of reticulospinal neurons (RNs) retrogradely labeled by fluorescently-tagged dextran injected caudal to the injury at 9 weeks post-TX. There was no statistically significant effect of MO on axon retraction at 2 weeks post-TX. However, at both 4 and 9 weeks post-TX, inhibition of NF expression inhibited axon regeneration.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available